It won't be a little more difficult. It won't be any more difficult. I can buy an illegal weapon today, right now, with a phone call.

Well yeah then what is the point of having any gun laws? Everyone can get them within the hour so we should just say screw it. Heck we could save time and when felons walk out of the prison we could hand them an address, clothes, and a gun.

I don't know, I guess it is pretty cut-and-dry for me. Out in the real world, with the exception of specific random situations, you are going to have three groups of people that may be in armed conflict at any time.

(1)Authority figures like a policeman on patrol.

(2)Law abiding citizens who carry weapons and use them responsibly.

(3)Criminals, or people who engage in criminal behavior while using a firearm.

I, personally, want to keep (2) as well armed as possible, (1) as well armed as is reasonable and (3) as poorly armed as possible. Gun control legislation will not effect (1), has little to no effect on (3), and will most likely pose a significant restraint on (2).

Fail.

I guess I just don't understand this. If you are a law abiding citizen how would stricter guns laws for criminals affect you?

So basically, making it easy for criminals to get weapons doesn't bother you? Got it. That is kind of like saying people are going to drive illegally anyways so why should we make them obtain a license. I mean what harm would there be in preventing convicted felons from purchasing guns legally?

There are already tons of laws at the federal and state level that prevent convicted felons from purchasing guns. Any federal felon is prohibited from purchasing a gun, and that's applicable everywhere in the US. And only a Presidential pardon can change that. State laws vary from state to state.

And all that is kinda pointless, since creating new laws isn't going to affect the criminals much. And even if we did ban firearms, criminals could simply make their own guns using common legal supplies found at any hardware store.

I guess I just don't understand this. If you are a law abiding citizen how would stricter guns laws for criminals affect you?

Because the law abiding citizen is the one who will remove his concealed weapon(legal and licensed) before entering a building with a sign that doesn't allow it. The law abiding citizen is the one who purchases weapons legally, completes the paperwork and background check.

I've hunted since I was a kid. I've taken hunter safety including passing a shooting range skill, I've had a background check allowing me to purchase guns without the wait, and I've taken the classes and passed the CCW class, test and shooting test.

A couple of years ago, I tried to buy a shotgun for turkey hunting from the Cabela's in KC. I was not allowed to do so.

If I wanted to be a criminal, it is very easy to call a guy who knows how to get things, and buy a non-registered weapon in exchange for cash. It's probably easier for some to get stolen weapons than in a store.

More and tougher laws only make law abiding citizens criminals because the bad guys are already bad guys and won't stop simply because of an additional crime.

Criminals do forfeit certain constitutional rights. Not a problem for me.

There's nothing in the 2nd amendment that says it should not apply to criminals. There's nothing else in the Constitution that says convicted criminals lose their 2nd amendment rights. I don't know what part of the Constitution you're citing when you make that argument.

Basically, you're arguing that certain regulations are acceptable because the public good outweighs the unadulterated right to arms.

I don't know, I guess it is pretty cut-and-dry for me. Out in the real world, with the exception of specific random situations, you are going to have three groups of people that may be in armed conflict at any time.

(1)Authority figures like a policeman on patrol.

(2)Law abiding citizens who carry weapons and use them responsibly.

(3)Criminals, or people who engage in criminal behavior while using a firearm.

I, personally, want to keep (2) as well armed as possible, (1) as well armed as is reasonable and (3) as poorly armed as possible. Gun control legislation will not effect (1), has little to no effect on (3), and will most likely pose a significant restraint on (2).